Paleo Diet!

[Freya]

I don't know much about it. What I see is it's taking out grains and sugars and eating more Meat and veggies.

Anyone know more about it? Please shares. I am interested.

[noxious.sunshine]

I have a Paleo Cookbook on my phone, but it seems to me that it's more of like an Atkins Diet type of deal, just with more carbs.

I think Vivi is kind of an advocate of this, isn't he? It seems like he's mentioned it a couple of times in other threads.

I've got a Paleo for Beginners book on hold in my home county's library via Overdrive (eBooks and stuff).. All the copies were already checked out, so.. yeah.

If you have a smart phone, check tuebl.ca - I'm pretty sure they have a couple of Paleo book or 2 available for download. They're completely free, so yeah!

[comma]

Another arbitrarily restrictive diet based on the assumptions of laymen, easily disproven myths, and chain letters perpetuated by bored grandmothers.

[Shlup]

Another arbitrarily restrictive diet based on the assumptions of laymen, easily disproven myths, and chain letters perpetuated by bored grandmothers.

To be fair, avoiding sugars and grains while increasing veggies and lean meats is a pretty healthy way to go.

[Pike]

I don't know much about it. What I see is it's taking out grains and sugars and eating more Meat and veggies.

This is basically how I eat because of dietary restrictions. Grains give me rashes and a stomachache. It sucks. (Both the symptoms and having to live on the diet itself.)

[Drift]

afaik its also got the nickname of "caveman diet" basically eating what cavemen would've eaten. less processed foods etc etc.
source: wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet)

I know wiki isn't a good source but its a starting point

[Slothy]

Strict paleo is basically the idea of eating the sorts of foods we would have had access to 10,000 years ago or so before the advent of agriculture. So basically low carb, no grains or sugars, no dairy, no processed foods, etc. Eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds.

I don't think strict paleo is particularly necessary unless you simply can't have dairy or something, but I do always recommend it as a starting point because diet recommendations for weight loss and good health don't get much easier than eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds. It's really impossible to go wrong by following that information. But as long as you're eating low carb in general, I don't have a problem with things like milk, cheeses, some fruit, etc. Just keep the really bad stuff to a once in a while thing and try to stay below 100g of carbs a day and straying from paleo isn't really a problem unless you have health issues with a specific food.

[Spuuky]

I read some about this subject today. Why, exactly, is the "debate" seemingly constantly centered around a discussion of whether or not that's how people from long ago actually ate? Isn't that completely irrelevant? We should be able to determine what dietary system is best regardless of who ate what in 18000 BC.

Anyway eating vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, and lean meats is always going to be good for you. But come on, if you're really going to care if it's what "Paleolithic" humans would have eaten, you basically can't eat ANYTHING that is actually sold in grocery stores, including all the meat and vegetables there.

Also, I like dairy and grains a lot and I wouldn't give them up even if it was slightly better for me. Plus physical activity matters at least as much to physical health as diet, and probably more.

[comma]

We should be able to determine what dietary system is best regardless of who ate what in 18000 BC.

Anyway eating vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, and lean meats is always going to be good for you. But come on, if you're really going to care if it's what "Paleolithic" humans would have eaten, you basically can't eat ANYTHING that is actually sold in grocery stores, including all the meat and vegetables there.Agreed. That's settled.

Agriculture and baking were started to make survival easier. And they still serve that purpose today. Eschewing technology that isn't strictly natural is anti-science.

[Slothy]

Also, I like dairy and grains a lot and I wouldn't give them up even if it was slightly better for me. Plus physical activity matters at least as much to physical health as diet, and probably more.

Other way around actually. You can't out train a troutty diet. No matter how much you exercise, if you eat a lot of grains and sugar filled food and drink every day, you're probably going to be overweight. But even if you're skinny you're still at a huge risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc with such a diet. Exercise is important, but if you don't have your diet in order there's not much exercise will do for you health wise. Best case scenario you'll probably be slightly stronger, faster, or have a bit more stamina than other unhealthy people.


Agriculture and baking were started to make survival easier. And they still serve that purpose today. Eschewing technology that isn't strictly natural is anti-science.

People who recommend and follow paleo diets are rarely against agriculture or anti-science. Quite the contrary really. But they do recognize that things like grains are objectively bad for long term health and choose to avoid them.

[noxious.sunshine]

I'm actually gonna start something like this on Monday. Except I'm gonna try going low/no sodium as well... Which means no mas cheese and a ton of other stuff.

I have a lot of drinking and eating cheese and junk that needs to be gotten out of the way this weekend so. woohoo.

[Slothy]

Excellent noxy. Let us know how it goes.

[noxious.sunshine]

^_^ Totes!

[Freya]

Haha I already started a similar diet this week and stumbled on it being refered to as the paleo diet. Hence this thread.

Not too hard yet.

[Slothy]

If you're not finding it very hard it's only going to get easier. The longer you keep at it the more cravings for grains and other junk foods tends to drop off.

[noxious.sunshine]

What Vivs said entirely.

This is gonna kinda lengthy, so... yeah.

I just decided to stop eating junk food and I almost never want it anymore... And by junk I mean candy and sweet stuff... Except for my mom's fudge. I only get to have a batch like 1x a year. And it's pretty healthy as far as sweets go.. She doesn't use marshmallow cream -or- extra sugar, so the only sugar is what's in the chocolate. She adapted it for my dad after he was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes and everyone that has some absolutely dies over it.

I actually already prefer eating healthy in general. I like pasta, but I always snack around on stuff I'm cooking while I'm cooking it, so I'm never hungry by the time I'm done. And when I -do- fix a bowl of it, I'll use more of the sauce/topping and way less noodles to try and balance it out. I'm perfectly happy with a salad of baby spinach and a bunch of veggies mixed in and lime juice for the dressing instead of -actual- dressing.

The big issue that I have now is my boyfriend. He's got major issues with losing weight. As in. He can eat 5 lbs of food in one sitting and still lose 10 lbs in one day. Someone mentioned that it's genetics 'cuz he's Filipino and grew up in the Philippines and Filipinos tend to stay skinny, but his grandfather was Spanish and his parents are both chunks along with his older brother. So I -have- to cook a lot of carb-heavy food for him and it's hard to budget in healthier stuff for me 'cuz of our weekly grocery budget. Sure, I can buy veggies and stuff, but it usually has to wind up in whatever I make for him. So what I buy has to be in-season to keep food costs down and with winter coming up... yeah...

Anywhooooo!

[Freya]

Oh no i mean I want my bread and pasta Hellas bad. But i don't find it to be too hard of a change. Veggies and lean meats aren't too expensive (i get grass fed beef from my parents. That whole ranch thing) its just more difficult to find something to supplement the lack if pastas and breads in a meal. Otherwise its not super drastic. Snack on fruit instead of chips. Nuts instead of m&ms etc etc

[Slothy]

Grass fed beef from your parents? Marry me?

[Freya]

Moooooo

I get deer and elk meat too cause my dad hunts a lot

[Slothy]

That's awesome!

But seriously, marry me.

[Freya]

You'll have to fight the boyfriend! He's a welder so he can hit hard*. It'd be a good fight though I'd think

Source: he works in the oilfield industry.

[Miriel]

My friend just opened up a paleo bakery and her paleo treats are actually super tasty.

But I think paleo is a bit too restrictive. Butter and cheese aren't bad for you in moderation. The ideal diet is pretty simple. Healthy fats, some protein, lots of veggies, some fruit. And toss in the occasional grains, starches and sugars because yummy things are yummy and you shouldn't deprive yourself completely.

[Slothy]

I could take him Freya.

And I know a lot of people use flower made from almonds and stuff as a substitute for grains. Not really my thing, but an option none the less.

[Freya]

47725
I guess this diet makes me actually cook, which I am usually too lazy to do. I enjoy cooking. I also enjoy being lazy. But I made overstuffed burgers (onions and tomatoes inside a burger :3) and a side of green beans and omg is it delicious!

I just googled paleo recipes. If anyone has any good recipes kind of along this diet that'd be great. I'm not following it strictly but I do like the cutting out grains and pastas. I know eating too much of those is bad for you. So any recipes (cheap ones, i'm poor) would be awesome!

[comma]

things like grains are objectively bad for long term healthLet's see the research that backs up that assertion.

[Slothy]

You could start by reading the book Wheat Belly if you want some really good coverage of the topic. It's well argued, well sourced to literally hundreds of studies and a pretty damn enjoyable read to be honest.

[noxious.sunshine]

I'm not sure if this would be Paleo Friendly or not.. I assume it is for the most part minus the Clamato (shut up haters), so you could just... Not use that bit and leave off the tostadas.. But try my Mexican Shrimp Cocktail? It's up there in the cookbook thread and it isn't all that expensive to make.. The shrimp & avocado would be the 2 most expensive stuffs to get (idk if avocados are in season... I don't think they are so they'll be over $1 a pop)... It's yummy though.

And if you like like... Lasagna, you could still make it, just use eggplant instead of lasagna noodles and make your own tomato/meat sauce.. Or take it a step further and make it completely vegetarian. I've done this for my ex & current bf 'cuz all they eat is meat and almost zero veggies and it drives me insane. lol

I also just found this!

http://ultimatepaleoguide.com/paleo-diet-recipes/

[Flaming Ice]

Strict paleo is basically the idea of eating the sorts of foods we would have had access to 10,000 years ago or so before the advent of agriculture. So basically low carb, no grains or sugars, no dairy, no processed foods, etc. Eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds.

I don't think strict paleo is particularly necessary unless you simply can't have dairy or something, but I do always recommend it as a starting point because diet recommendations for weight loss and good health don't get much easier than eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds. It's really impossible to go wrong by following that information. But as long as you're eating low carb in general, I don't have a problem with things like milk, cheeses, some fruit, etc. Just keep the really bad stuff to a once in a while thing and try to stay below 100g of carbs a day and straying from paleo isn't really a problem unless you have health issues with a specific food.




Yeah, it's supposed to be an anti-inflammation diet to control insulin levels.


But aren't you supposed to soak nuts and cut out seeds because of the anti-nutrients?



Also grains and legumes have the anti-nutrients in them, they can be mostly neutralized by cooking legumes and soaking wheat (if you eat bread it's better to make your own anyways, you can substitute in honey, etc instead of cane sugar and no preservatives)

[Flaming Ice]

47725
I guess this diet makes me actually cook, which I am usually too lazy to do. I enjoy cooking. I also enjoy being lazy. But I made overstuffed burgers (onions and tomatoes inside a burger :3) and a side of green beans and omg is it delicious!

I just googled paleo recipes. If anyone has any good recipes kind of along this diet that'd be great. I'm not following it strictly but I do like the cutting out grains and pastas. I know eating too much of those is bad for you. So any recipes (cheap ones, i'm poor) would be awesome!



I usually just buy a large pack of ground beef or whatever meat's on sale, cook it up with veggies and put it over some spinach. Simple, easy, saves money. Or just make a stew, it can last a few days. And if you have a bit of honey every once in a while almonds + manuka honey is a tasty snack.



Be careful if you buy some spices too, some contain wheat warnings (fresh garlic is much more satisfying anyways :))




Grass fed beef from your parents? Marry me?



:cry: I can't even find it in grocery stores......everything is "grain fed" ~.~

[Shorty]

My friend just opened up a paleo bakery and her paleo treats are actually super tasty.

But I think paleo is a bit too restrictive. Butter and cheese aren't bad for you in moderation. The ideal diet is pretty simple. Healthy fats, some protein, lots of veggies, some fruit. And toss in the occasional grains, starches and sugars because yummy things are yummy and you shouldn't deprive yourself completely.

Yes, this. My mom and my sister both center around a paleo diet and they treat grains as a vampire would a crucifix. You couldn't get me to cut pasta out of my life for anything. :colbert:

[Slothy]

Grass fed beef from your parents? Marry me?



:cry: I can't even find it in grocery stores......everything is "grain fed" ~.~

There's a place around here that gets locally sourced grass fed beef. I think it's a fair bit easier to get here in Canada with our over abundance of land. I'd rather not have to buy it though. :p

[Flaming Ice]

Grass fed beef from your parents? Marry me?



:cry: I can't even find it in grocery stores......everything is "grain fed" ~.~

There's a place around here that gets locally sourced grass fed beef. I think it's a fair bit easier to get here in Canada with our over abundance of land. I'd rather not have to buy it though. :p


Yeah, free is great.


It was actually hard to get organic for a while too but superstore has an organic section:) Plus president's choice is getting more products out there too.

[Spuuky]

Other way around actually. You can't out train a troutty diet. I basically don't agree with this. Yes, if your diet is sufficiently extreme in its badness, then sure, it matters (and I concede that many Americans apparently do have extremely bad diets but I guess I'm not discussing them here). But if you are within a normal dietary range of human consumption then exercising matters a lot more than cutting out potatoes or bread from your diet.

[Slothy]

Other way around actually. You can't out train a troutty diet. I basically don't agree with this. Yes, if your diet is sufficiently extreme in its badness, then sure, it matters (and I concede that many Americans apparently do have extremely bad diets but I guess I'm not discussing them here). But if you are within a normal dietary range of human consumption then exercising matters a lot more than cutting out potatoes or bread from your diet.

If you're the type of person who struggles with gaining and losing weight then unless you're training at professional athlete levels you won't get very far without cutting crabs. Fat loss is literally about 90% diet. And that's to say nothing of the effects excess Carbuncle consumption has that you can't readily see in your waist line. You can exercise all you want and even be lucky enough to stay lean, but if you're eating 200-300g of crabs a day with much of that being bread, potatoes, etc. you're still at much higher risk of things like type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

[Freya]

Carbuncle consumption D: NOT THE CARBUNCLES

http://images.wikia.com/finalfantasy/images/a/a7/FFIX_Carbuncle.png

[Slothy]

Fuck smart phones. :p

[noxious.sunshine]

He also said 200 - 300 gs of crabs XD

[comma]

You could start by reading the book Wheat Belly if you want some really good coverage of the topic. It's well argued, well sourced to literally hundreds of studies and a pretty damn enjoyable read to be honest.I don't want to read a well-argued interpretation of research, I want to read research. If you can make a claim in a thread, you can post a link to research.

[Slothy]

You could start by reading the book Wheat Belly if you want some really good coverage of the topic. It's well argued, well sourced to literally hundreds of studies and a pretty damn enjoyable read to be honest.I don't want to read a well-argued interpretation of research, I want to read research. If you can make a claim in a thread, you can post a link to research.

Yeah, I'm not going to try to track down research articles on my phone so I can post them for you. You want a list of research studies, hit up a library or book store and take a look at the long list of references used in Wheat Belly. Or you could spend two seconds on Google yourself. It's not that hard to find these studies, I'm just not going to bother when I'm stuck with nothing but my smartphone to do it.

[comma]

Okay, whenever you get the chance to back up your claims, feel free to post studies. You must have read some convincing stuff in order to say what you did, so I'm just curious what you read.

[comma]

This is a study I found that summarizes a lot of research (based on over 80 studies; see References) on low-carb/high-protein/high-fat diets like the paleo diet: https://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30008636/crowe-lowcarbohydratediets-2003.pdf

Feasibility:
The US National Weight Control Registry, which compiles details of individuals who have lost more than 13 kg for a year or more, analysed the diets of 2681 members.10 They found that fewer than 1% of these successful people had followed a diet classified as ‘low carbohydrate’ (defined as 24% or less total daily kilojoules coming from carbohydrate) suggesting that this type of diet is not realistic for the achievement of longterm weight loss.

Efficacy in weight control:
those individuals consuming a diet with 55% of energy from carbohydrates, compared to those whose diets comprised zero to 30% energy contribution from carbohydrates, actually ate the same amount of food in terms of weight, however consumed less energy, more fibre, and less fat. Individuals consuming a greater percentage of carbohydrates ate more low-fat foods, unrefined grain products and fruits, and these adults were more likely to have a BMI less than 25 kg/m2. Such data suggests that a high-carbohydrate diet, which contains unrefined grains, cereals, and plenty of fibrous matter, is more nutritionally adequate than low carbohydrate diets and of a lower energy density, which may be important in weight control.

In regard to ketosis, which results from a high-fat diet:
elevation of blood uric acid levels is a well-recognised side effect of prolonged ketosis. Long-term effects of exposure of the body to elevated uric acid levels while on ketogenic diets have not been studied, but potential does exist for arthritic and renal complications due to long-term hyperuricaemia. Studies on a normal adult population using a ketogenic diet for weight loss for periods of a year or more (as described in the aforementioned paediatric group) have not been performed, though the documented side-effects may potentially pose a serious health risk to individuals.

Risk of deficiencies:
However, low-carbohydrate diets are at greater risk of being nutritionally inadequate as they enforce restriction of food choices. Typically, low-carbohydrate diets are low in fibre, thiamin, folate, vitamins A, E, and B6, calcium, magnesium, iron, and potassium. In the absence of supplemental multivitamins, there is a real risk of nutritional deficiencies occurring. Low-carbohydrate diets are also usually higher in saturated fat and cholesterol with protein mainly being derived from animal sources.

Heart disease:
A review of the effect of the use of isoenergetic ketogenic diets on blood lipids found that, overall, LDL-cholesterol and total cholesterol tended to be elevated while HDL-cholesterol levels were lowered. As LDL-cholesterol is considered a major contributor to the process of atherogenesis, then long-term use of low-carbohydrate diets, be it for weight reduction or weight maintenance, may have the potential to put an individual at greater risk of heart disease.

Fairly obvious about calcium:
Low-carbohydrate diets promote the restriction of dairy products, particularly milk and yoghurt, which are the main sources of calcium in the diet. As peak bone mass is an important factor in determining long-term fracture and osteoporosis risk, adoption of dieting practices that restrict calcium intake (particularly in those under the age of 30) have the potential to compromise the attainment of peak bone mass.

A little less obvious about calcium:
Low-carbohydrate diets have the potential to generate a sub-clinical chronic metabolic acidosis (via the presence of ketone bodies in blood) which can then promote calcium mobilisation from bone.

Cancer risk:
The potential link between increased intakes of meat (typically seen on low-carbohydrate diets) and bowel cancer risk can not be ignored as it has been suggested that the link between meat and the consumption of animal protein with cancer is as strong as the association of fat with cancer.

[Spuuky]

I think I am going to cut all carbs, fats, sugars, vegetables, fruits, grains, meats, dairies, seeds, nuts, bolts, and everything from my diet. I will survive solely on vitamins and water.

[comma]

I think I am going to cut all carbs, fats, sugars, vegetables, fruits, grains, meats, dairies, seeds, nuts, bolts, and everything from my diet. I will survive solely on vitamins and water.You wouldn't be the first: https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body

But really, that could go a long way in battling the food crisis if it turns out to be as good as they suggest.

[noxious.sunshine]

Omg. You guys are ridiculous sometimes.

I side with Vivs on this, personally.

Especially when it comes to the carb part. Not everyone can consume carbs and it be "healthy". My father has type 2 diabetes - he's supposed to stay on a low-carb low-sugar diet. Does he? Hell no. It's my dad. He ain't gon listen to nobody. And he's on his last legs, so he should be able to enjoy those things while he can.

Eating breads and pastas also make -me- feel sluggish and tired if I eat too much.

Because of my family history, I'm at risk for a lot of health problems including strokes & heart attacks, breast cancer (and I can almost guarantee that I will get it at some point), diabetes, and a plethora of other things.

So because of this, I -do- have to take into account what I eat and drink. Especially when it comes to carbs.

The science of nutrition is always evolving and changing. Nothing is ever set in stone. You can swear by the latest studies or dig up something old or practically anything that you think makes sense, but that doesn't exactly mean it's a for sure right thing. For all you know, the doctor(s)/nutritionist(s) who made these reports could change their stance entirely within a year or 2.

[comma]

The science of nutrition is always evolving and changing. Nothing is ever set in stone. You can swear by the latest studies or dig up something old or practically anything that you think makes sense, but that doesn't exactly mean it's a for sure right thing. For all you know, the doctor(s)/nutritionist(s) who made these reports could change their stance entirely within a year or 2.I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions about nutrition science and science in general. Peer-reviewed studies rarely get proven wrong later down the road. The scientific method typically ensures that when something is linked to something else, that link is tough to break in the future. Findings get updated, not overturned. Einstein built on Newton's laws, not abolished them, and Einstein's Special Theory has been added to as well. Science makes the picture clearer over time, but it very rarely gives us the wrong picture. Newton's laws are still used to perform successful, real-world calculations constantly, as is Einstein's theory.

So, you know, every little cause I mentioned up above is each one bad thing about that diet. Those things aren't likely going to change. What may happen is that a lot of good things get discovered about the same diet, or even the same facets above may show some good signs. Or even worse signs. It simply comes down to weighing the good against the bad, and making the best judgment call one can make given the currently available information. To say that the information will change in the future and can therefore be safely disregarded is ignorant and anti-science.

Oh, and honestly, if your dad has special dietary needs, he should listen to his personal nutritionist and not just adhere to some diet that's popular on the Internet.

[Freya]

It's not like other foods don't have carbs. Carbs aren't horrible, it's just about eating the good carbs not the ones that make you feel blah. everything I've read about this diet particularly hasn't been to completely cut out every carb. It has to cut out the bad ones. We need carbuncles. Just not the ones that make me bloaty.

[comma]

I think that's fairly well understood. It's a low-carb diet, not a no-carb diet, although some people do 0% carbs apparently.

[noxious.sunshine]

I agree. Won't argue that point.

As far as my dad.... He and my mom have no insurance. They haven't been able to get insurance for quite some time. He's considered a liability and even if they -could- get it, they can't afford it. My dad doesn't have the means to just "go talk to a nutritionist" (my autocorrect tried putting in a Nigerian just now lol), much less an actual doctor. The only Dr he will see is the one that theuve been seeing since 1985. He's in my hometown. They can't afford the trip there now, so he's just added out. Nor would he listen. He knows what he's supposed to do and what he needs to eat and what he should avoid, but at this point in his life, there's no sense. He's a very picky eater and he likes to snack around on whatever. He has managed to switch to sugar free chocolate candy and he'll eat like dried cherries to help his gout and if I'm around, he'll eat grilled cactus if I can find & make it for him cuz it helps with cholesterol . Otherwise, there's no convincing that man. He's incredibly stubborn.

[Flaming Ice]

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/#axzz2fgbBCnwM

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/#axzz2fgbBCnwM



I believe part of the diet is 80% follow the guidelines and 20% cheat (if you'd like) so it's not like you have to follow 100%

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

The science of nutrition is always evolving and changing. Nothing is ever set in stone. You can swear by the latest studies or dig up something old or practically anything that you think makes sense, but that doesn't exactly mean it's a for sure right thing. For all you know, the doctor(s)/nutritionist(s) who made these reports could change their stance entirely within a year or 2.I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions about nutrition science and science in general. Peer-reviewed studies rarely get proven wrong later down the road. The scientific method typically ensures that when something is linked to something else, that link is tough to break in the future. Findings get updated, not overturned. Einstein built on Newton's laws, not abolished them, and Einstein's Special Theory has been added to as well. Science makes the picture clearer over time, but it very rarely gives us the wrong picture. Newton's laws are still used to perform successful, real-world calculations constantly, as is Einstein's theory.


Strictly speaking, what you are saying is not necessarily true. That is not to say that Newtonian physics (or classical physics) was thrown out the door with the advent of Einsteinian/relativistic physic, rather there was a fundamental change in how we think of science and understand the world around us. Newton and his contemporaries weren't just doing science. They were also doing philosophy. There wasn't a clear line at that time between doing philosophy of science and scientific endeavors themselves. There were vast arguments on metaphysics, methods, epistemology going on at the same time being argued by scientist and philosophers alike. Heck, the scientific methods itself is heavily influenced by the work of Francis Bacon (who wasn't a scientist as we know it). Taking all that context into consideration, then when people like Thomas Kuhn talk about revolutions and paradigm shifts in science, it makes a lot more sense. Moreover, science is not a system of verification but a system of falsification.

tl;dr There are a variety of views on science and the nature of science and it is not as clear-cut as you argued. Though there are arguments to be made of science as progressive there are equally arguments to be made of science more revolutionary, consisting of paradigm shifts.

As for dieting, I think the name of the diet itself is rather ridiculous since it comes with a bunch of implications that are rather ridiculous. But that is an issue with nomenclature. As far as dieting goes, I am less educated about that and go with the rule of thumb not to excess on things. Too much of anything ain't that good for you (hell, excess of some vitamins can be carcinogenic).

[Flying Mullet]

Fad diet.

[Denmark]

I think I am going to cut all carbs, fats, sugars, vegetables, fruits, grains, meats, dairies, seeds, nuts, bolts, and everything from my diet. I will survive solely on vitamins and water.

http://iheartgiveaways.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/vitamin-water.jpg

and yeah isn't all food that's not pure poison ok for you in moderation, where the amount that "in moderation" means varies depending on the food type?

[Skyblade]

I don't have a lot of personal experience with the Paleo Diet, or, for that matter, diets in general, beyond the ones my parents and sister have tried or looked at. That said, I do have some fairly strongly held opinions on the Paleo Diet, and I'll share them, and how I reached them, here.

My first encounter with the diet was pretty much a non-event, noticing the Paleo Diet Cookbook in our bookstore, which I saw while walking by. I heard it mentioned a few places, but never paid it any mind.

I first paid attention to the diet when my parents read an article in their Food Network Magazine about a study performed by US News and a panel of nutritionalists/health experts (http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets). In which, of the 29 diets rated, the Paleo Diet is tied for last place, scoring abysmally in every category (http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/paleo-diet/reviews).

I then took a look at the cookbook out of bemused interest, and very quickly came to a similar conclusion. It is easily one of the worst diets I've ever seen. Following its rules will, quite literally, kill you.


See, the Paleo Diet advertises itself as getting you back to "eating what our cavemen ancestors ate". However, the rules it gives you for doing this cut out a very important dietary supplement that the cavemen had access to. One which, in fact, you cannot live without. I'm speaking, of course, of

In every cookbook or diet guide for the Paleo Diet which I have seen, salt is eschewed. It will tell you no processed foods, yes, but it also tells you no foods containing salt at all, and no salt supplements of any sort. If it has salt, you aren't allowed to eat it.

There is no culture, from any time frame, which followed this rule. In fact, there is no land dwelling animal species which followed this rule. While cooking or eating with salt may not be the norm, there's a reason why the term Salt Lick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_lick) exists. Salt has been a dietary supplement since before mankind existed. You cannot live without it. The average adult needs approximately 500 milligrams a day, or you die (your nervous system probably needs it the most, but several of your organs use it as well, in addition to simple fluid maintenance throughout your body). Interestingly enough, the theoretical dietary salt of Paleolithic man was about 770 milligrams (excluding any supplements); high enough to survive, and higher than the diet's guides, but still far lower than any expert will tell you is a safe salt dosage.

But let's ignore the "absolutely no salt" part of it and just say it's limiting salt: There's still no evidence supporting it. Search for the studies if you want (there was one wide scale one done as recently as May of this year (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/health/panel-finds-no-benefit-in-sharply-restricting-sodium.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) indicating that very low sodium intake can cause increased health problems), or simply doctoral opinions.

There is almost no medical reason, of any sort, to cut salt. A healthy human body, of any age, can process salt even with wide changes in the dietary intake. Remember all those experiments you did in science class with osmosis and semi-permeable membranes? Yeah, guess what, your body is full of plenty of such membranes, and tons of water, a combination which makes processing salt simple (though you do have to watch your water intake).

Its horrible treatment of salt is only one aspect, though. In pretty much any review of the diet by health experts I've seen, it's also been called out for cutting entire food groups, some of which are the only (or only easily affordable) source of other essential nutrients: No dairy? No calcium, vitamin D, magnesium or phosphorus. No grains? No fiber, few antioxidants, and again, some lost vitamins.

While we're at it, let's not forget that the diet itself is completely theoretical. The "caveman" diet it talks of is all supposition, with no proof to it. And the various health benefits it espouses (because all the problems we have now are supposedly based on our new diets) are even more tenuous. How does anyone know whether there were obese cavemen? Or cavemen with heart disease? Saying that these (and other) medical conditions were caused by the civilized diet and not anything else (such as simply living longer, or changes in exercise patterns) is not only completely unproven, but it has no scientific backing whatsoever.

There's also no strictures on the meat you can eat. Meat's good, go ahead and have it. Of course, that particular cut, with the nice marbling that will cook up deliciously is just full of saturated fats, but the diet doesn't care about that.


If you want to cut out processed foods, fine. But cutting out entire food groups, or eliminating the majority of what let us become a civilization in the first place is not the way to do it.

[CimminyCricket]

Just keep the really bad stuff to a once in a while thing and try to stay below 100g of carbs a day and straying from paleo isn't really a problem unless you have health issues with a specific food.

A few coworkers and I tried to stay below 35 (I don't know where the number came from) and it was much harder than I thought it would be. I lost 15 pounds in a week and a half, so I quit. I was already only 175ish pounds and then I dropped down to 160 and I just didn't like how skinny I ended up looking.

long story short diets work

[Freya]

I'm not really following this diet strictly or anything. More of cutting out pastas and breads. I'm trying to just eat veggies and fruit more. I just stumbled upon it as I was looking things up and was interested in it. From what some are saying it doesn't seem like the best diet to adhere to strictly. General principle of it though seems fine, less bread and pasta and more fruits and veggies! I can do that!

[NorthernChaosGod]

I don't have a lot of personal experience with the Paleo Diet, or, for that matter, diets in general, beyond the ones my parents and sister have tried or looked at. That said, I do have some fairly strongly held opinions on the Paleo Diet, and I'll share them, and how I reached them, here.

My first encounter with the diet was pretty much a non-event, noticing the Paleo Diet Cookbook in our bookstore, which I saw while walking by. I heard it mentioned a few places, but never paid it any mind.

I first paid attention to the diet when my parents read an article in their Food Network Magazine about a study performed by US News and a panel of nutritionalists/health experts (http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets). In which, of the 29 diets rated, the Paleo Diet is tied for last place, scoring abysmally in every category (http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/paleo-diet/reviews).

I then took a look at the cookbook out of bemused interest, and very quickly came to a similar conclusion. It is easily one of the worst diets I've ever seen. Following its rules will, quite literally, kill you.


See, the Paleo Diet advertises itself as getting you back to "eating what our cavemen ancestors ate". However, the rules it gives you for doing this cut out a very important dietary supplement that the cavemen had access to. One which, in fact, you cannot live without. I'm speaking, of course, of

In every cookbook or diet guide for the Paleo Diet which I have seen, salt is eschewed. It will tell you no processed foods, yes, but it also tells you no foods containing salt at all, and no salt supplements of any sort. If it has salt, you aren't allowed to eat it.

There is no culture, from any time frame, which followed this rule. In fact, there is no land dwelling animal species which followed this rule. While cooking or eating with salt may not be the norm, there's a reason why the term Salt Lick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_lick) exists. Salt has been a dietary supplement since before mankind existed. You cannot live without it. The average adult needs approximately 500 milligrams a day, or you die (your nervous system probably needs it the most, but several of your organs use it as well, in addition to simple fluid maintenance throughout your body). Interestingly enough, the theoretical dietary salt of Paleolithic man was about 770 milligrams (excluding any supplements); high enough to survive, and higher than the diet's guides, but still far lower than any expert will tell you is a safe salt dosage.

But let's ignore the "absolutely no salt" part of it and just say it's limiting salt: There's still no evidence supporting it. Search for the studies if you want (there was one wide scale one done as recently as May of this year (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/health/panel-finds-no-benefit-in-sharply-restricting-sodium.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) indicating that very low sodium intake can cause increased health problems), or simply doctoral opinions.

There is almost no medical reason, of any sort, to cut salt. A healthy human body, of any age, can process salt even with wide changes in the dietary intake. Remember all those experiments you did in science class with osmosis and semi-permeable membranes? Yeah, guess what, your body is full of plenty of such membranes, and tons of water, a combination which makes processing salt simple (though you do have to watch your water intake).

Its horrible treatment of salt is only one aspect, though. In pretty much any review of the diet by health experts I've seen, it's also been called out for cutting entire food groups, some of which are the only (or only easily affordable) source of other essential nutrients: No dairy? No calcium, vitamin D, magnesium or phosphorus. No grains? No fiber, few antioxidants, and again, some lost vitamins.

While we're at it, let's not forget that the diet itself is completely theoretical. The "caveman" diet it talks of is all supposition, with no proof to it. And the various health benefits it espouses (because all the problems we have now are supposedly based on our new diets) are even more tenuous. How does anyone know whether there were obese cavemen? Or cavemen with heart disease? Saying that these (and other) medical conditions were caused by the civilized diet and not anything else (such as simply living longer, or changes in exercise patterns) is not only completely unproven, but it has no scientific backing whatsoever.

There's also no strictures on the meat you can eat. Meat's good, go ahead and have it. Of course, that particular cut, with the nice marbling that will cook up deliciously is just full of saturated fats, but the diet doesn't care about that.


If you want to cut out processed foods, fine. But cutting out entire food groups, or eliminating the majority of what let us become a civilization in the first place is not the way to do it.

You can actually get the things you think the diet is cutting out from many fruits, leafy greens, and nuts. I'm pretty sure fruits and veggies are actually a better source for antioxidants than grains anyway. Aside from the salt, I'm not sure you're actually missing much of anything.

[Skyblade]

I don't have a lot of personal experience with the Paleo Diet, or, for that matter, diets in general, beyond the ones my parents and sister have tried or looked at. That said, I do have some fairly strongly held opinions on the Paleo Diet, and I'll share them, and how I reached them, here.

My first encounter with the diet was pretty much a non-event, noticing the Paleo Diet Cookbook in our bookstore, which I saw while walking by. I heard it mentioned a few places, but never paid it any mind.

I first paid attention to the diet when my parents read an article in their Food Network Magazine about a study performed by US News and a panel of nutritionalists/health experts (http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets). In which, of the 29 diets rated, the Paleo Diet is tied for last place, scoring abysmally in every category (http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/paleo-diet/reviews).

I then took a look at the cookbook out of bemused interest, and very quickly came to a similar conclusion. It is easily one of the worst diets I've ever seen. Following its rules will, quite literally, kill you.


See, the Paleo Diet advertises itself as getting you back to "eating what our cavemen ancestors ate". However, the rules it gives you for doing this cut out a very important dietary supplement that the cavemen had access to. One which, in fact, you cannot live without. I'm speaking, of course, of

In every cookbook or diet guide for the Paleo Diet which I have seen, salt is eschewed. It will tell you no processed foods, yes, but it also tells you no foods containing salt at all, and no salt supplements of any sort. If it has salt, you aren't allowed to eat it.

There is no culture, from any time frame, which followed this rule. In fact, there is no land dwelling animal species which followed this rule. While cooking or eating with salt may not be the norm, there's a reason why the term Salt Lick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_lick) exists. Salt has been a dietary supplement since before mankind existed. You cannot live without it. The average adult needs approximately 500 milligrams a day, or you die (your nervous system probably needs it the most, but several of your organs use it as well, in addition to simple fluid maintenance throughout your body). Interestingly enough, the theoretical dietary salt of Paleolithic man was about 770 milligrams (excluding any supplements); high enough to survive, and higher than the diet's guides, but still far lower than any expert will tell you is a safe salt dosage.

But let's ignore the "absolutely no salt" part of it and just say it's limiting salt: There's still no evidence supporting it. Search for the studies if you want (there was one wide scale one done as recently as May of this year (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/health/panel-finds-no-benefit-in-sharply-restricting-sodium.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) indicating that very low sodium intake can cause increased health problems), or simply doctoral opinions.

There is almost no medical reason, of any sort, to cut salt. A healthy human body, of any age, can process salt even with wide changes in the dietary intake. Remember all those experiments you did in science class with osmosis and semi-permeable membranes? Yeah, guess what, your body is full of plenty of such membranes, and tons of water, a combination which makes processing salt simple (though you do have to watch your water intake).

Its horrible treatment of salt is only one aspect, though. In pretty much any review of the diet by health experts I've seen, it's also been called out for cutting entire food groups, some of which are the only (or only easily affordable) source of other essential nutrients: No dairy? No calcium, vitamin D, magnesium or phosphorus. No grains? No fiber, few antioxidants, and again, some lost vitamins.

While we're at it, let's not forget that the diet itself is completely theoretical. The "caveman" diet it talks of is all supposition, with no proof to it. And the various health benefits it espouses (because all the problems we have now are supposedly based on our new diets) are even more tenuous. How does anyone know whether there were obese cavemen? Or cavemen with heart disease? Saying that these (and other) medical conditions were caused by the civilized diet and not anything else (such as simply living longer, or changes in exercise patterns) is not only completely unproven, but it has no scientific backing whatsoever.

There's also no strictures on the meat you can eat. Meat's good, go ahead and have it. Of course, that particular cut, with the nice marbling that will cook up deliciously is just full of saturated fats, but the diet doesn't care about that.


If you want to cut out processed foods, fine. But cutting out entire food groups, or eliminating the majority of what let us become a civilization in the first place is not the way to do it.

You can actually get the things you think the diet is cutting out from many fruits, leafy greens, and nuts. I'm pretty sure fruits and veggies are actually a better source for antioxidants than grains anyway. Aside from the salt, I'm not sure you're actually missing much of anything.

Unfortunately, I am not the primary source of pretty much any of the information in the article (aside from the salt notice, which was based on my personal studies of the diet's regulations). You might be surprised how easy it is to find information from various health experts, doctors, nutritionalists, etcetera who speak ill of the diet. Those reasons were not my own, and I also left out the way the diet cuts beans and legumes, and that doing so will also cut out several of those same nutrients (and an excellent protein source), thus removing another efficient source for those nutrients.

The basics of the diet, "More of cutting out pastas and breads. I'm trying to just eat veggies and fruit more" as Freya so elegantly put it, are perfectly acceptable. But there are tons of diets which argue along similar lines, and don't include many, if any, of the problems that I've seen raised about the Paleo Diet. Check out the US News study I linked. There are several diets there that follow similar rules, but which rate higher in nearly every category, from healthiness to efficiency at taking off weight.

It is not hard, at all to find problems with the diet. It has critics everywhere, and not a lot of evidence of any sort backing it up.

Oh, and even its premise has been debunked. It argues for a return of the Paleo diet which existed before agriculture arose, approximately 10,000 years ago, hence its cutting of farm based foods. But Humans have been eating grains far longer than that. (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2009/12/17/humans-feasting-on-grains-for-at-least-100000-years/)

The diet is based on a flawed premise and supported with wild supposition. There are safer, healthier, and easier to follow diets that also seem to work better.

If it works for you, in whatever modified version of it you follow, great. Power to you. But if you're looking for a diet to start, I'm going to advise you to go elsewhere.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I don't have a lot of personal experience with the Paleo Diet, or, for that matter, diets in general, beyond the ones my parents and sister have tried or looked at. That said, I do have some fairly strongly held opinions on the Paleo Diet, and I'll share them, and how I reached them, here.

My first encounter with the diet was pretty much a non-event, noticing the Paleo Diet Cookbook in our bookstore, which I saw while walking by. I heard it mentioned a few places, but never paid it any mind.

I first paid attention to the diet when my parents read an article in their Food Network Magazine about a study performed by US News and a panel of nutritionalists/health experts (http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets). In which, of the 29 diets rated, the Paleo Diet is tied for last place, scoring abysmally in every category (http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/paleo-diet/reviews).

I then took a look at the cookbook out of bemused interest, and very quickly came to a similar conclusion. It is easily one of the worst diets I've ever seen. Following its rules will, quite literally, kill you.


See, the Paleo Diet advertises itself as getting you back to "eating what our cavemen ancestors ate". However, the rules it gives you for doing this cut out a very important dietary supplement that the cavemen had access to. One which, in fact, you cannot live without. I'm speaking, of course, of

In every cookbook or diet guide for the Paleo Diet which I have seen, salt is eschewed. It will tell you no processed foods, yes, but it also tells you no foods containing salt at all, and no salt supplements of any sort. If it has salt, you aren't allowed to eat it.

There is no culture, from any time frame, which followed this rule. In fact, there is no land dwelling animal species which followed this rule. While cooking or eating with salt may not be the norm, there's a reason why the term Salt Lick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_lick) exists. Salt has been a dietary supplement since before mankind existed. You cannot live without it. The average adult needs approximately 500 milligrams a day, or you die (your nervous system probably needs it the most, but several of your organs use it as well, in addition to simple fluid maintenance throughout your body). Interestingly enough, the theoretical dietary salt of Paleolithic man was about 770 milligrams (excluding any supplements); high enough to survive, and higher than the diet's guides, but still far lower than any expert will tell you is a safe salt dosage.

But let's ignore the "absolutely no salt" part of it and just say it's limiting salt: There's still no evidence supporting it. Search for the studies if you want (there was one wide scale one done as recently as May of this year (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/health/panel-finds-no-benefit-in-sharply-restricting-sodium.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) indicating that very low sodium intake can cause increased health problems), or simply doctoral opinions.

There is almost no medical reason, of any sort, to cut salt. A healthy human body, of any age, can process salt even with wide changes in the dietary intake. Remember all those experiments you did in science class with osmosis and semi-permeable membranes? Yeah, guess what, your body is full of plenty of such membranes, and tons of water, a combination which makes processing salt simple (though you do have to watch your water intake).

Its horrible treatment of salt is only one aspect, though. In pretty much any review of the diet by health experts I've seen, it's also been called out for cutting entire food groups, some of which are the only (or only easily affordable) source of other essential nutrients: No dairy? No calcium, vitamin D, magnesium or phosphorus. No grains? No fiber, few antioxidants, and again, some lost vitamins.

While we're at it, let's not forget that the diet itself is completely theoretical. The "caveman" diet it talks of is all supposition, with no proof to it. And the various health benefits it espouses (because all the problems we have now are supposedly based on our new diets) are even more tenuous. How does anyone know whether there were obese cavemen? Or cavemen with heart disease? Saying that these (and other) medical conditions were caused by the civilized diet and not anything else (such as simply living longer, or changes in exercise patterns) is not only completely unproven, but it has no scientific backing whatsoever.

There's also no strictures on the meat you can eat. Meat's good, go ahead and have it. Of course, that particular cut, with the nice marbling that will cook up deliciously is just full of saturated fats, but the diet doesn't care about that.


If you want to cut out processed foods, fine. But cutting out entire food groups, or eliminating the majority of what let us become a civilization in the first place is not the way to do it.

You can actually get the things you think the diet is cutting out from many fruits, leafy greens, and nuts. I'm pretty sure fruits and veggies are actually a better source for antioxidants than grains anyway. Aside from the salt, I'm not sure you're actually missing much of anything.

Unfortunately, I am not the primary source of pretty much any of the information in the article (aside from the salt notice, which was based on my personal studies of the diet's regulations). You might be surprised how easy it is to find information from various health experts, doctors, nutritionalists, etcetera who speak ill of the diet. Those reasons were not my own, and I also left out the way the diet cuts beans and legumes, and that doing so will also cut out several of those same nutrients (and an excellent protein source), thus removing another efficient source for those nutrients.

The basics of the diet, "More of cutting out pastas and breads. I'm trying to just eat veggies and fruit more" as Freya so elegantly put it, are perfectly acceptable. But there are tons of diets which argue along similar lines, and don't include many, if any, of the problems that I've seen raised about the Paleo Diet. Check out the US News study I linked. There are several diets there that follow similar rules, but which rate higher in nearly every category, from healthiness to efficiency at taking off weight.

It is not hard, at all to find problems with the diet. It has critics everywhere, and not a lot of evidence of any sort backing it up.

Oh, and even its premise has been debunked. It argues for a return of the Paleo diet which existed before agriculture arose, approximately 10,000 years ago, hence its cutting of farm based foods. But Humans have been eating grains far longer than that. (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2009/12/17/humans-feasting-on-grains-for-at-least-100000-years/)

The diet is based on a flawed premise and supported with wild supposition. There are safer, healthier, and easier to follow diets that also seem to work better.

If it works for you, in whatever modified version of it you follow, great. Power to you. But if you're looking for a diet to start, I'm going to advise you to go elsewhere.

I'm not on that diet and I'm not even really a proponent of it, I'm just saying the stuff you posted wasn't necessarily true.

[Flaming Ice]

. Those reasons were not my own, and I also left out the way the diet cuts beans and legumes, and that doing so will also cut out several of those same nutrients (and an excellent protein source), thus removing another efficient source for those nutrients.

Anti-nutrients:
Amylase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amylase) inhibitors prevent the action of enzymes that break the glycosidic bonds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycosidic_bond) of starches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch) and other complex carbohydrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate), preventing the release of simple sugars and absorption by the body. Amylase inhibitors, like lipase inhibitors, have been used as a diet aide and obesity treatment. Amylase inhibitors are present in many types of beans; commercially available amylase inhibitors are extracted from white kidney beans.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient#cite_note-4)


Phytic acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid) has a strong binding affinity to minerals such as calcium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium), magnesium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium), iron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron), copper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper), and zinc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc). This results in precipitation, making the minerals unavailable for absorption in the intestines.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient#cite_note-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient#cite_note-6) Phytic acids are common in the hulls of nuts, seeds and grains.


Some proteins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)) can also be antinutrients, such as the trypsin inhibitors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trypsin_inhibitor) and lectins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectin) found in legumes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legume).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient#cite_note-9) These enzyme inhibitors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_inhibitor) interfere with digestion.


Just a simple wiki search but you can find articles if you feel like it;)


But from what I've read the antinutrients in legumes can be mostly neutralized by cooking them (you'll see the cooking times on the packages I believe it's the same amount of time needed neutralize them). Then the anti nutrients in flour and nuts can be neutralized by soaking them.


Simplest way of doing a diet is eating all natural foods as much as you can, cut out sugar loaded foods , artificial colours/flavours, modified oils, etc.

[Quindiana Jones]

Hey look, comma and Spuuky are being aggressively contradictory. Fuck me. You two must be a joy to hang out with, I tell ye.

[Slothy]

No dairy? No calcium, vitamin D, magnesium or phosphorus.

No Calcium is demonstrably (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3085/2) fa (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2617/2)lse. (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/4378/2) Same goes for Magnesium and Phosphorous with pretty much the same links. And Vitamin D is straight up bulltrout because it's added to milk after the fact, is readily available in other foods, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Dietary_sources) and the largest source of the stuff for humans is from sun exposure anyway.


No grains? No fiber, few antioxidants, and again, some lost vitamins.

If you're trying to get your fiber, anti-oxidants and vitamins from grains then you're doing it wrong. They terrible sources of fiber compared to fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, and they'd be utterly devoid of anti-oxidants and vitamins if they weren't added in after the fact. And even then, they're a very poor source of the stuff compared to whole foods. Anyone who told you otherwise has never bothered to check the actual nutrition labels.

[Spuuky]

Hey look, comma and Spuuky are being aggressively contradictory. smurf me. You two must be a joy to hang out with, I tell ye.Remind me who I'm aggressively contradicting in this thread?

[noxious.sunshine]

BEANS! Black Beans are Motherchucking -great-. I love them with all my heart. Especially when made "from scratch"... Sautee up some onion, jalepeno, & garlic & throw it in the mix while yer cookin em.. They got fiber. A lot of it... But it's easy to go overboard on the servings.. Especially if you eat -mine-. No for real. I'll buy a 1 lb bag of dried black beans & make them and my bf will eat the entire pot.

For the last oh.. Few years, I've been making them homemade and frying up Mexican Chorizo with the jalepeno, garlic, and onion and adding that to the pot along with dried chicken bouillon powder. It's bomb as all get out, but throwing in the chorizo & chicken flavoring makes it pretty fatty and unhealthy. The bouillon has a ton of sodium already in it so.. yeah.

[Spuuky]

Beans aren't permitted in a strict Paleo diet, so they don't qualify as a source of fiber for this particular discussion.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Beans aren't permitted in a strict Paleo diet, so they don't qualify as a source of fiber for this particular discussion.

Nuts, berries, and vegetables are though.

[Spuuky]

Indeed they are. I wasn't disputing that fiber existed plentifully in the diet. just that particular post talking about beans. Beans are the best source of fiber in a diet that includes them.

[Flaming Ice]

Beans aren't permitted in a strict Paleo diet, so they don't qualify as a source of fiber for this particular discussion.



Depends on how strictly you adhere to the diet.......some people do 80/20 (80% of a full week you stick to the diet, 20% of the week you're allowed to eat something not allowed).

[Araciel]

I'm a sixth level vegan. I don't eat anything that casts a shadow.

-paleolithic humans likely ate anything they could, so I never understood why anything is restricted.. if you wanna eat grains go ahead, just don't eat grain products.

-paleolithic diet should be coupled with at least as much physical activity as one would have to expend back in the day to emulate a caveman lifestyle. I think the caloric needs (hunting and gathering) of a caveman helped balance the amount and types of food they ate.

-taking that into account, think of how many times cavemen would likely have to skip meals or go days without eating.. I think I heard on some youtube dude's channel how fasting stimulates hgh production and all other kinds of benefits I don't want if it means going hungry

hell why not go around clubbing people?!

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

Hm. I've never heard of this.

But it is essentially the way I diet. And by diet, I mean the way I normally eat when not gorging on fast food.
Except that I don't exclude dairy. And I usually simply cut back on grains and such, not remove them completely. I still love me my quesadillas.

It is a decent idea all in all. I just don't see the point in being so drastic as to diet that way as a way of life. I like pasta and cheese and milk and cereal and all that.

I'm just gonna do whatever I want.